| Quote: |
I am very troubled by the expansion of a bill that would allow federal prosecution for crimes based on "actual or perceived" sexual orientation. Critics – and I am one – believe the bill, which has passed in the House, would, if signed into law, pose a serious threat to pastors and religious organizations that hold biblical views on morality.
The hate crimes provision is in the Senate Judiciary Committee as SB 1145 (Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act), with no action being taken on it since May. But in September, the same Act was tacked on as an amendment to the Child Safety Act (H.R. 3132) and passed in the House, moving on to the Senate with the amendment (Title X of the Child Safety Act) being renamed as the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2005.
The hate crimes bill would be the first law by the federal government that affords special protection or benefits based on the status of sexual orientation.
I certainly agree that we must work as a nation to halt sex crimes and to make information available to families regarding dangerous predators. However, the supplemental hate crimes amendment is terribly perilous for pastors and churches.
Mathew Staver, president and general counsel of the Orlando-based Liberty Counsel, says that giving special protection to specified groups devalues the lives of others who are not members of those groups. He says that all crime victims suffer, and all should be treated equally under the law.
In a press release, Liberty Counsel stated: "... if the hate crimes bill passes the Senate, it will be coupled with the Hate Crimes Reporting Act of 1990 which mandated that the FBI include intimidation in its reporting of statistics on hate crimes. Therefore, because intimidation may also be considered a hate crime, ministers or religious organizations who speak out against homosexuality are in danger of being labeled with a hate crime."
Supporters of the law scoff at the suggestion that pastors and religious leaders would be held accountable for asserting, from a biblical perspective, that homosexuality is immoral. But we have seen cases across the globe where this is taking place.
Such speech is already under attack. Liberty Counsel notes these examples:
# Eleven Christians were jailed under Pennsylvania's hate crimes law in 2004 for singing in a public park and speaking out against homosexuality.
# In 1998, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed a resolution blaming religious people for hate crimes, declaring: "It is not an exaggeration to say that there is a direct correlation between these acts of discrimination, such as when gays and lesbians are called sinful and when major religious organizations say they can change if they tried, and the horrible crimes committed against gays and lesbians."
# A Canadian citizen was fined more than $6,000 for running a newspaper ad in which he quoted Leviticus 18:22, which states that homosexuality is a sin.
# A mayor in Canada was found to violate a human rights ordinance when she refused to declare Gay Day.
# A minister in the United Kingdom was fined £20,000 (approximately $35,000) for an ad that described homosexuality as an abomination.
# A complaint was filed in a Dutch court against Pope John Paul II for his statement that "homosexual acts are contrary to the laws of nature." The Dutch court ruled that the pope's status as the leader of the Roman Catholic Church and the Vatican State afforded him immunity from prosecution. But other religious leaders would not be immune.
While we must work as a nation to uncompromisingly protect our children from sexual predators, Christians need to be very concerned about the effort to silence our free-speech rights. |
source
Yes, I do hate evil. Should that be a crime? NO! If we go down that road we might as well abolish all laws to appease the wicked minority now.It's like the eminant domain laws... in very few cases it can be a good thing, but generally, it's rediculous.
People need to stop being so damn gay. 
| shr3dd wrote: |
| People need to stop being so damn gay. |
absolutely that's just ridiculous, but even worse is the one being contemplated in the UK to "protect" religion, more precisely they want they hope it will "protect" islam
it makes a crime out of "insulting" religion or religious beliefs, so if Monty Python made Life of Brian today and someone acused them they could be held liable, freaking amazing, you have free speech as long as you don't even slightly offend someone even in mockery, with the amount of wackos out there pretty soon we won't be able to talk about almost everything in public, maybe we'll have to form some secret meetings, always fearing the police, if we even want to discuss some new jokes
"so a naked priest walks into a bar..."
that law, and this law mencioned in this thread just need people to start being reasonable and stop trying to be so damn politically correct!
there will always be people offended by the smallest thing, blame God or the primordial soup (depending on your beliefs..) for creating the bastards
People should definately stop being so damn gay The examples above don't seem like crimes to me. I think intimidation should be considered a hate crime but only if a guy just totally gets in someone's face and in their way. Just speaking out shouldn't qualify as intimidation.
If a pastor preaches against homosexuality, that's fine. You may not agree with what he says, but he has a right to say it.
Now if he lights a bomb and throws it into a gay bar, that's a crime and I think it should be punished more than a normal crime because it's a crime of premeditated hate.
Please name three LOVE CRIMES
I meant premeditated hate as a result of racial, ethnic, and/or religious discrimination.
| gonzo wrote: |
# Eleven Christians were jailed under Pennsylvania's hate crimes law in 2004 for singing in a public park and speaking out against homosexuality. |
well speaking against homosexual is plainly stupid.
it is not anyone business what consenting beings do in their beds or who they marry.
but any attack on free speech is even worse, that is trueLet's look at the text of this Bill, instead of reacting upon an article from a propaganda site which also runs articles like - "the next 9/11 is coming - fight or die"
So here go all the clauses from this bill which define hate crimes -
| Quote: |
This Act may be cited as the 'Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2001'.
Chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
<...>
Sec. 249. Hate crime acts
OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN
AND
OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RELIGION, NATIONAL ORIGIN, GENDER, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, OR DISABILITY
- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person
death results from the offense; or
offense includes kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill. |
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.R.1343:
| S3nd K3ys wrote: |
| in very few cases it can be a good thing, but generally, it's rediculous |
So it's actually useful in a "very few cases".
Please tell us about the remaining majority of cases, where it is not only useless, but also ridiculous ?
I guess you want this remaining majority of such offenses to go unpunished ?
| shank wrote: |
start being reasonable and stop trying to be so damn politically correct!
there will always be people offended by the smallest thing |
If only you had not let this propaganda article be your only source of information on this bill, you would have noticed that this is not about people being offended by the smallest things or being politically correct.
| shr3dd, quickly patted on the back by gonzo wrote: |
| People need to stop being so damn gay. |
And you need to stop being so damn intolerant of others.
I guess you want the legal right to cause "bodily injury" to gay people ?
or Muslims ?
And more particularly, how exactly does this bill threaten your religious freedoms, as this thread is titled ?
I guess it threatens your religious freedoms by making it illegal for you to kill and cause bodily injury to the people that you hate.
By the way, have none of you outspoken anti-anti-hate-crime-bill folk noticed, that the newsmax article primarily uses Foreign references ?
It uses examples from places where this law doesn't even exist ?
| gonzo's Hate Propaganda Article wrote: |
A Canadian citizen was fined
A mayor in Canada was found to violate
A minister in the United Kingdom was fined
A complaint was filed in a Dutch court against Pope John Paul II |
It's evident that this bill is meant to protect minority groups like LGBTs and religious and other minorities from crimes, which are perpetrated against them just because of who they are, out of sheer hatred.
And how do you ignite a public opposition against it ? This is how -
| Hate propaganda wrote: |
| While we must work as a nation to uncompromisingly protect our children from sexual predators, Christians need to be very concerned about the effort to silence our free-speech rights |
That's right, first connect all lesbians and gays and non-christian and handicapped people with child abuse.
Portrait them somehow as sexual predators.
Say that you need to kill them to "protect our children"
Then wonder why killing them is illegal.
Say that is should be legal, and that they need to stop being so damn gay.
And then when a Bill is passed to protect them, make a hue and cry about your free-speech rights ! Nice. I noticed all the foreign ones but there was the Pennsylvania one.
From what you mention, it looks like cases such as those are just abuses of the law and not a part of the law itself. Nowhere in there do I see "intimidation" as a hate crime and therefore no ambiguity. Therefore, the law should stand and is entirely constitutional. The abuses themselves should be dealt on a case by case basis through the legal system.
Once again, hate speech (whether you disagree with it or not) is constitutional. Hate crimes should be punished.
Once again, I mean "hate" as in acts committed due to racial or ethnic prejudices/discrimination, not as in "I hate you, Bobby. Leave me alone and never talk to me again."
Ugh, its stuff like this that makes me nervous about my future career (Im training for a Civil Rights Lawyer ). Fine they may not be right about it being a 'sin' but its freedm of speech.
Then again, Britain has got that whole Preaching hate law trying to be passed. | Nano wrote: |
Ugh, its stuff like this that makes me nervous about my future career (Im training for a Civil Rights Lawyer ). Fine they may not be right about it being a 'sin' but its freedm of speech.
Then again, Britain has got that whole Preaching hate law trying to be passed. |
Definition of sin
sin
n 1: estrangement from god [syn: sinfulness, wickedness] 2: an act that is regarded by theologians as a transgression of God's will
Dictionary.com
sin has only to do with Religion and pretty much every religion says that Homosexuality is a sin. What authority do you speak on when
you say that homosexuality is a sin. We know very well that what you said about homosexuality is not true so please
don't state it as being fact when it is just your opinion | jveezy wrote: |
| I meant premeditated hate as a result of racial, ethnic, and/or religious discrimination. |
Name three premeditated LOVE crimesheheh a law to protect religion in the uk wouldnt stop you saying what you thought, people here are far too outspoken the prisons would have to be built to take 95% of the population for repeat offenders 
| Xalophus wrote: |
| Let's look at the text of this Bill, instead of reacting upon an article from a propaganda site which also runs articles like - "the next 9/11 is coming - fight or die" |
Why all the complaining about MSM when all you do is quote third rate Conservative Media?
I wouldn't even call it Conservative, this is just downright Religious Fanaticism.
Fight or die?
| shr3dd wrote: |
| People need to stop being so damn gay. |
and some people need to stop being so pathetic.
Ofcourse what you need to do could span an entire thread of its own.
But what a waste of time.
| gonzo wrote: |
A Canadian citizen was fined
A mayor in Canada was found to violate |
Canada is Evil.
So are homosexuals,non-conservatives, feminists.
And now we have an extended list what is evil:
A bill that declares that offenses including kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill IS ALSO EVIL.
And you in very few cases it is a good thing but generally ridiculous?
When IS it ridiculous? When you have to Kidnap,abuse sexually or kill a homosexual?
You post an article from an extremist source and expect us to not look into the actual document?
Or maybe if you had read the actual document you would have known what its exact legal lettering is?(another case of : "I don't care"?)
| Xalophus wrote: |
By the way, have none of you outspoken anti-anti-hate-crime-bill folk noticed, that the newsmax article primarily uses Foreign references ? |
For those who wish to know more about Newsmax's Conservative Bias ( so much for MSM ) simply go to their website www.newsmax.com and follow these simple steps ( sounds like instant noodles eh? ):
Step#1:Open www.newsmax.com
Step#2:Gently swivel your eye-ball(s) to the right hand side of the page.
Step#3:Slowly and steadily observe the banners displayed on the right hand side of the page.
Step#4: Think ( try not to hurt yourself. )
Inference: The Banners displayed include - "CLICK HERE TO DEFEND DeLay ! " and " BET ON IRAQ " ( so much for republican family values ) , and interestingly some sleazy SEDUCTION TECHNIQUES FOR MEN advertisement.
[ As seen in the Clinton thread....]
Some amusing ad-material from NEWSMAX:
Defend DeLay? So much for Un-biased....
Gotta be popular with the UN haters...unbiased?
Get serious.
Last edited by i_am_mine on Sun Jan 08, 2006 1:17 am; edited 1 time in totalWe need to prevent our children from being sexually abused says the Church. Indeed. I can think of one good way.
Anyway, as mentioned above, the act has nothing to do with free speech. That, as always, is still one of those unalienable rights we enjoy so much. The Chuch can gay-bash all they want and for now it won't be a problem. Morality is not at issue. What is at issue is the ability for punishment to be a greater deterent for hate crimes in order to dissuade violent persecution. To me, that sounds like an okay goal. I should hope the country wants to move past lynching gays and blacks.
